Students tested right after a lecture tended to answer factual questions equally well regardless of how they took notes, but students who handwrote their notes did consistently better on conceptual questions. What’s more, when students were tested again a week later, the longhand note takers performed consistently better on both factual and conceptual questions.

This has since been confirmed in studies among other types of populations. As Isaac Asimov said, “Writing, to me, is simply thinking through my fingers.”

But maybe we need to take a step back and discuss writing, regardless of the method. Some of us have long enjoyed writing, be it notes, books, or blogs. However, many people have never picked up or embraced the skill.

“What I was reading wasn’t making any sense,” said [Jesse] Sanchez, principal of the main high school in Brawley, a town in a remote desert region of California a half-hour drive from the Mexican border. What worried him most was the poor quality of students’ writing, which showed some lacked the ability to make coherent arguments for projects they wanted to do to earn a special graduation sash and a note on their transcripts recording project completion. Sanchez responded by creating a school-wide program that requires all students to write regularly in every class, including P.E., where earlier this year, students wrote about what they had learned regarding muscle anatomy and weight training.

This wasn’t just a mandate to write, but a program coordinated across all aspects of the school, with faculty supported with their own training programs. What was the result?

English language arts scores rose 30.6 percentage points to 64.6 percent of students meeting or exceeding standards on Smarter Balanced tests from 2014-15 to 2016-17, while math scores increased by nearly 17 percentage points to 29.9 percent achieving those benchmarks. It’s a significant achievement for the Brawley high school, where 74 percent of students are low-income; 22 percent are learning English; and 10 percent are migrants, who change schools during the year to follow their parents’ work in agriculture or other industries.

Other results include more kids writing better applications for colleges, resulting in furthering their education and eventually their careers.

Writing is thinking, and writing well helps clarify thinking. The writing program at Brawley is undergoing continuous improvement while promoting critical thinking.

The school is tweaking its writing program each year, based on student and teacher feedback, Sanchez said. All teachers are receiving training in grading writing assignments according to a rubric that requires students to respond to a question by restating the issue, answering the question, citing sources, and using evidence to support conclusions.

What is the problem? What are potential solutions? What data and evidence supports the conclusion?

How can writing be incorporated as a value-adding activity into the workplace? A3 reports, analysis of quality issues, proposals for new equipment or human assets, customer and supplier collaboration, project presentations – there are many areas.

Improving and reinforcing writing skills adds critical thinking value to both the team member and the organization.

For years my wife and I had been fans of our Keurig. Pop in a pod and in a minute you had a decent cup of coffee. Simple, clean, and seemingly “lean” since the process was optimized with very little waste. That changed when The Atlantic published an article in 2015 describing just how wasteful it really was. So much so that even the inventor of the machine has disavowed it, and over 10 billion K-cups now make their way to the garbage every year. “Recyclable” K-cups are on the way, but importantly they are still not compostable, hence most will still end up in the garbage. Keurig machines themselves are not reparable, so hundreds of thousands of them are also ending up in landfills.

This was a major problem for us, both because we live in a beautiful part of the country and are environmentally sensitive, and also because of my strong belief that “respect for people” is the most important component of lean. “Respect for people” is really “respect for humanity” – and extends outside of the organization, outside of suppliers and customers, to the community. Environmental stewardship is therefore important to a true lean organization, and is why, for example, Toyota paints the “smoke” stacks of their factories yellow so the community can see that very little pollution is being created.

So what options besides the Keurig do we have for a single cup of coffee? Even though I switched to decaf over two years ago, I still love the flavor and like having a cup of joe first thing in the morning. We tried a couple of conventional drip brewers, but were disappointed with the taste. For several months we even did a quick 5 minute run to the local coffee shop each morning, but that also seemed a bit ridiculous from a value perspective, even though we did use our own flasks or recycled the cups and lids when we forgot it.

Then one day a friend introduced us to the pour over. The flavor was rich and deep, with an aroma you could smell from across the room. We started the research, and were soon overwhelmed with the components and process. It seems simple, but it’s really not. Just throw some grounds in a filter, dump hot water on it, and you have coffee, right? Not if you want a really good cup. Many call it an art, but I don’t like that term – everything is a process in some form.

First you need the equipment. After reading a lot of reviews we settled on the Osaka, which has a stainless steel filter. Some people prefer paper filters, but they can interfere with the taste – and they create some waste. The Osaka is simple, inexpensive, and easy to clean.

Then you need a proper kettle. A standard tea kettle doesn’t have a precision spout which, as I’ll describe shortly, is critical. We ended up getting the Fellow Stagg from Williams-Sonoma, which also has a built-in thermometer to ensure the proper water temperature.

To really get a tasty brew you should grind the beans just before use, preferably with a burr grinder. Blade grinders shatter the beans creating uneven particles.

For raw materials you need water, preferably filtered. A high quality coffee is also best, and we enjoy Peet’s Major Dickason’s Blend. Buy the smallest quantity of beans possible so they are fresh.

The process is critical. Even minor variations can cause major changes to the flavor of the final product. Here’s ours:

Ensure all equipment is available and clean, and all raw materials are available.

Fill the kettle half full and turn on the stove.

Grind enough beans to make four tablespoons of ground coffee, which is enough to produce a 16 oz cup of coffee.

Place the filter into the flask and evenly add the ground coffee.

By now the water should be at the proper temperature: 195-205˚ F, easily determined thanks to the thermometer in the kettle.

The bloom pour: gently pour twice as much hot water as grounds onto the grounds, starting in the center and spiraling outward. Wait 30-45 seconds. This saturates the grounds and starts the extraction process.

The main pour: gently and slowly pour hot water onto the saturated grounds, again beginning in the center and spiraling outward, then inward. The grounds should never be swimming, therefore this is a slow process and will take 3-5 minutes to yield 16 ounces. It is also a very mindful, meditative activity. You must be focused on that one activity, clearing the mind of other thoughts. A perfect way to condition and calm the mind for the day.

Pour the coffee from the flask into your coffee cup, adding cream or sugar as desired.

But you’re not done! Now it’s important to thoroughly clean all equipment, and returning them to their proper location so the process can be repeated the next morning. If more raw materials – coffee – are necessary, write a note to pick up more.

Yes this is several more steps than the Keurig, but the resulting value – and reduced waste – is also much greater.

Equipment needs to be sized and specified to match and support the desired process. Spending a bit more can optimize this relationship, improving value and even reducing cost later on.

The process, and process parameters, need to be very well defined. Many components of the process are related to individual taste – value from the perspective of the customer. Methodically experiment with coffee brand, grind size, and equipment to find the right combination. Kaizen.

Executing the process must consistent and requires total focus. From start to finish, which really takes all of 5-10 minutes, there needs to be total focus, especially during the main pour. Standard work.

Inventory the smallest amount possible, and prepare and use exactly the amount of raw materials needed. Just in time.

At the end, the work area and equipment is cleaned and returned to the defined original condition. This will make it easy to repeat the process the next morning. 5S.

Enjoy the coffee! A perfect pour over is a great way to start the day!

“We do not learn from experience… we learn from reflecting on experience.” – John Dewey

I’ve written before about how I’ve worked hard to develop a habit of reflection… daily, monthly, and annually. Although the end of the year is an arbitrary time, it is a convenient time to find a few days to be alone and look back on the prior months. This year I’m taking advantage of a couple days when my wife will be at a conference to sequester myself on a beach, disconnect, and ponder some questions. What had I planned on doing, what ended up happening, how can I improve on that, and what will I plan on doing this coming year?

A few weeks before my annual ritual I also look for some inspiration that will help me look at the process of reflection – it is a process – from a new perspective. One year Jon Miller recommended Edgar Shein’s Humble Inquiry, which I found fascinating from many angles. This year a friend told me about John Dewey, and specifically his book How We Think. It’s definitely not as easy of a read as Schein’s, but there are some jewels.

Dewey dives deeply into thinking processes, and how our thoughts create beliefs that may be fallacious.

Such thoughts grow up unconsciously and without reference to the attainment of correct belief. They are picked up — we know not how. From obscure sources and by unnoticed channels they insinuate themselves into acceptance and become unconsciously a part of our mental furniture. Tradition, instruction, imitation — all of which depend upon authority in some form, or appeal to our own advantage, or fall in with a strong passion — are responsible for them. Such thoughts are prejudices, that is, prejudgments, not judgments proper that rest upon a survey of evidence.

So we need to look at how we think, and how that’s contributed to what we perceive, ie reflective thought.

Active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends, constitutes reflective thought… It is a conscious and voluntary effort to establish belief upon a firm basis of reasons.

Thinking … is defined accordingly as that operation in which present facts suggest other facts (or truths) in such a way as to induce belief in the latter upon the ground or warrant of the former. We do not put beliefs that rest simply on inference on the surest level of assurance. To say “I think so” implies that I do not as yet know so. The inferential belief may later be confirmed and come to stand as sure, but in itself it always has a certain element of supposition…

[There are] certain subprocesses which are involved in every reflective operation. These are: (a) a state of perplexity, hesitation, doubt; and (b) an act of search or investigation directed toward bringing to light further facts which serve to corroborate or to nullify the suggested belief.

From which reflection is also a process.

Reflection involves not simply a sequence of ideas, but a consequence — a consecutive ordering in such a way that each determines the next as its proper outcome, while each in turn leans back on its predecessors. The successive portions of the reflective thought grow out of one another and support one another; they do not come and go in a medley. Each phase is a step from something to something — technically speaking, it is a term of thought. Each term leaves a deposit which is utilized in the next term. The stream or flow becomes a train, chain, or thread.

Intentional reflection, therefore, is not just sitting on the beach and letting a “medley” of thoughts on the past year flow through my head. It is a planned analysis.

I’ll begin with the foundation of last year’s plan and the data of the results from that plan. I can then review what happened to each element of the plan and break that down to look at potential root causes for failures. It’s important to also look at root causes for successes, as those can be built upon and optimized. Then what are the commonalities between what happened with various elements of the plan? What experiments can I try to improve? What do I expect to happen? How and when will I know if I have succeeded or failed? How can I apply and integrate that into what I want to accomplish over the next year? How does that align with my personal principles, values, and my “why?” What do I want to stop doing?

I’ve loosely followed that process in the past, but I want to be more disciplined this year. A couple of solid, disconnected days in solitude sound about right for this activity.

My post a couple weeks ago on Gratitude, for Gratitude, generated a large number of responses. Interestingly, most were private, commenting on both the nature of gratitude but especially on my daily routine. I had detailed my regular set of activities in the morning, including meditation and the setting of three key priorities, and in the evening of reflecting on my performance with those priorities. Many folks mentioned that they had morning and perhaps evening routines, but said they had not thought about reflection – let alone intentional reflection.

My contemplation of those comments was brought into focus a bit when I came across a passage in the book Kurt Vonnegut: Letters, edited by Dan Wakefield. It’s a fascinating, funny, and, since it’s Vonnegut, sometimes freaky book that takes you inside the mind of the famous author. The passage of import is a letter he wrote to his wife Jane where he describes his daily routine.

In an unmoored life like mine, sleep and hunger and work arrange themselves to suit themselves, without consulting me. I’m just as glad they haven’t consulted me about the tiresome details. What they have worked out is this: I awake at 5:30, work until 8:00, eat breakfast at home, work until 10:00, walk a few blocks into town, do errands, go to the nearby municipal swimming pool, which I have all to myself, and swim for half an hour, return home at 11:45, read the mail, eat lunch at noon. In the afternoon I do schoolwork, either teach of prepare. When I get home from school at about 5:30, I numb my twanging intellect with several belts of Scotch and water ($5.00/fifth at the State Liquor store, the only liquor store in town. There are loads of bars, though.), cook supper, read and listen to jazz (lots of good music on the radio here), slip off to sleep at ten.

Of course most people have routines, and many people like learning about the routines of famous or successful people. One common characteristic that most people know of is that they are almost invariably early risers – Winston Churchill being the exception as someone who loved to stay in bed until 11am. I tend to agree – my favorite, and most productive, time of the day is between 4 and 8 am.

Benjamin Franklin is famous for his routine, which he meticulously tracked on a daily log. Yes, that does look remarkably similar to a leader standard work sheet, doesn’t it? Notice the two tasks on the left.

The morning question, What good shall I do today?

The evening question, What good have I done today?

In other words, setting tasks for the day in the morning, and reflecting on them in the evening. When you search for the routines of successful (however defined) people, that evening reflection is also a common attribute.

Reflection, along with gratitude as I previously discussed, is a key attribute of leadership success.

Many, if not most, people have daily routines. It is the reflection at the end of the day that makes it an intentional routine. That intentionality is also a core component of mindfulness. An awareness of the routine itself, instead of being simply a habitual series of activities. Reflection looks back at the process and results and, most importantly, provides the introspection and analysis to improve the routine and performance generated by the routine.

How did the routine affect performance against the key tasks for the day? How effective is that task selection itself? How can the routine be improved to better support task completion?

Reflection, hansei in the lean world, is a powerful professional leadership tool. It’s how we look back on projects and performance, and identify ways to improve. But it is also a powerful, and critical, personal leadership characteristic to improve daily performance.

Reflection converts simple habits into an intentional, high performing, routine. It’s worth a few minutes each evening.

The other day while skimming LinkedIn I came across yet another one of those cheesy quotes that, unfortunately, have become all too common on the site: “Surround yourself with people on the same mission.” I proceeded to get into an online discussion with several people who have probably never held a serious leadership position in their careers. I should have known better, or maybe I’ve just spent too many decades in the trenches.

This concept has bothered me for many years, back to when I first read the similar concept floated by Jim Collins of “get the right people on the bus” with the corollary of “get the right people in the right seats.” I’ll give most of you a couple minutes to finish genuflecting since I mentioned the name Jim Collins. Many of you probably still do the same when someone utters the name “Jack Welch,” even if you know of his ridiculous hypocritical postulations on the value of people. The turkey.

Jim Collins’ metaphor is well-intended, but often misinterpreted to mean that everyone must be perfectly aligned and think the same. Similarly, the statement of “surround yourself with people on the same mission” is misinterpreted to mean that everyone must be looking forward and following the leader… even if she is leading the flock off a cliff.

In my experience the people that have helped my organizations progress the most, capitalize on the unique opportunity, or address the hidden underlying issue, are those that are a little different – a little out of line. I’ve often vehemently disagreed with some of them until I stopped to think about their perspective. Then I, and others on my staff, found value.

Yes there is a fine line between being a contrarian with a unique perspective and someone who is simply negative – and perhaps destructive. It’s definitely more difficult to lead an organization with such people, and it can be frustrating to others in the organization. The natural human desire is to have a calm, positive, aligned environment. Kumbayah… off a cliff.

I’d argue that such unquestioning alignment is even more dangerous that the potential impact of a contrarian crossing the line to destructive negativism. Opportunities may not be discovered, and risks identified and addressed. Organizations that try to root out troublemakers and politicians and scientists that try to squelch debate by calling something “settled” do so at their own risk. Lo and behold, the world is not flat.

A scene in the recent movie World War Z was intriguing along these same lines. We are surprised to learn that Israel is already prepared for the highly unlikely zombie outbreak thanks to a concept called “the tenth man.” Basically when nine people on Israel’s intelligence directorate (AMAN) are convinced of one direction, it is the responsibility of the tenth to investigate and find facts to argue the opposite.

Just a movie? Actually no. The Brookings Institution documented this leadership strategy in a 2007 paper titled Lessons from Israel’s Intelligence Reforms. An interesting read on many levels, believe it or not.

First, in order to make sure that different and opposing opinions are heard within the Israeli intelligence community, AMAN has a culture of openness, where individuals are expected to voice dissenting opinions. The organizational slogan that reflects this openness is, “Freedom of opinion, discipline in action.” AMAN has two other tools that promote diversity: the “devil’s advocate” office and the option of writing “different opinion” memos.

The devil’s advocate office ensures that AMAN’s intelligence assessments are creative and do not fall prey to group think. The office regularly criticizes products coming from the analysis and production divisions, and writes opinion papers that counter these departments’ assessments. The staff in the devil’s advocate office is made up of extremely experienced and talented officers who are known to have a creative, “outside the box” way of thinking. Perhaps as important, they are highly regarded by the analysts. As such, strong consideration is given to their conclusions and their memos go directly to the office of the Director of Military Intelligence, as well as to all major decision makers. The devil’s advocate office also proactively combats group think and conventional wisdom by writing papers that examine the possibility of a radical and negative change occurring within the security environment. This is done even when the defense establishment does not think that such a development is likely, precisely to explore alternative assumptions and worst-case scenarios.

While the devil’s advocate office is an institutional level safeguard against group think, there is also an individual-level safeguard. The analysts themselves are given venues for expressing alternate opinions. Any analyst can author a “different opinion” memo in which he or she can critique the conclusions of his or her department. Senior officers do not criticize analysts who choose to write such memos.

Sorry about the long excerpt, but it’s valuable. The Israelis aren’t the only ones to embrace this concept.

The term “Devil’s Advocate” actually came from none other than the Catholic Church. The formal term was “Promoter of the Faith” and the position was created in 1587 to provide an intentional dissenting perspective when discussing whether to grant sainthood. Their job was to make an argument for why canonization should not occur. The position and practice was abolished by Pope John Paul II in 1983. Interestingly, there have been an unprecedented number of canonizations and beatifications since then, including Pope John Paul II.

So what do you do with people in your organization that bring up alternatives, especially in a constructive way? How about those that may not be as deft at doing it in a constructive manner? Do you kick them off the bus? Or do you find them a seat, working with them so they understand how to still be constructive and respectful, realizing that they are potentially one of the most valuable parts of the organization?

Alignment of mission and being on the same bus does not mean that everyone must always agree. In fact, it’s best if they don’t.

Seven and a half years after scribbling my first post on Evolving Excellence I'm moving – whether I'm moving on, moving up or just moving over remains to be seen, I suppose – but moving I am. From here on out you can find my stuff at:

The Center is an effort supported by a tech partner, iDatix, and the good folks there have given me free reign to write and post at my own discretion. While you will find it dominated by my work as we get things launched, the plan to is keep a judicious eye on the available literature, videos. etc… and have it be a source of the very best in manufacturing management information.

The run at Evolving excellence has been a great one, and I will always have a warm spot in my heart for Kevin and the EE readers who made it possible. Thank you so much. I hope to see you over at the Leadership Center.